DOCKET SECTION
BEFORE THE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2026843001
RECEIVED
DEC 8
r’ns;:,, ;:.rr Li ‘!
,,~~,:
(lffqrf~ (I; ~,‘I: ;; ,_, ,;,I<‘,
I
POSTAL RATE AND FEE CHANGES, 1997
/
Li 52 pi\ ‘97
Docket No. R97-1
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE OBJECTION
TO INTERROGATORIES
DFC/USPS-19-22
(December 8, 1997)
The United States Postal Service hereby objects to interrogatories
DFCIUSPS-19-
22, filed on November 26, 1997, for the reasons discussed below.
Interrogatory
DFCAJSPS-19
consists of 18 parts seeking extensive information
regarding a system that, among other purposes, collects information
regarding whether
postal facilities meet their post office box cut off times. The Postal Service objects to
this interrogatory
on the grounds of relevance, materiality, commercial sensitivity,
lateness, and burden.
The interrogatory
follows up on the Postal Service’s response to DFC/USPS-9,
in
which the Postal Service stated that it “is in the process of rolling out ,a system that
monitors whether respective facilities meet their box cut off times.”
The Postal Service
also provided the system’s guidelines for collecting information regarding how it
monitors post office compliance with stated cut off times.
lnterrogato,ry DFC/USPS-19
then asks for:
(a) when the Postal Service began planning this system;
(b) all information
relating to the reasons why this system was developed;
(c) the meaning of “in the process of rolling out”, as well as a timetable for
implementation;
-2(d) a list of post offices in which this system exists, and for each such post office,
the date of implementation, an analysis of the success of the system, and a report
on operational changes resulting from the system;
(e) whether the system requires all post offices to post a cut off time for box mail;
(f) whether a post oftice can avoid the system by removing its signs indicating a cut
off time for delivery of box mail;
(g) the difference between the “scheduled” and “posted” time for box mail to be
finalized and available to customers;
(h) whether a unit is considered to be on time only if the box mail is distributed to
the boxes not later than the scheduled and posted cut off time;
(i) a quantitative definition of “consistently” as used in the sentence from the
system guidelines: “If a unit consistently fails to meet the box cut off time, analysis
should be done to review possible actions to help the unit meet the cut off time.“;
(j) whether analysis “must” be done when a unit consistently fails ,to meet the box
cut off time, and, if not, why not;
(k) how the Postal Service will determine the needs of customers if failure to meet
a cut off time is not effective and the Postal Service considers moving the cut off
time:
(I) whether it would be reasonable for a unit to move its box delivery cut off time to
a later time to improve consistency in meeting the cut off time, whlen First-Class
Mail is received by the unit at 7:00 a.m., and the current cut off time is 1 I:00 a.m.;
(m) whether the II:00
a.m. cut off time for such a unit is reasonable;
(n) how often a units performance will be monitored under the system;
(0) whether the units staff will be aware of the monitoring while it is taking place;
(p) whether the manager of the facility will be aware of the monitoring more than
one day before the monitoring begins, and, if so, how many days before the
monitoring;
(q) whether the personnel who conduct the monitoring will work for the post office
that is being monitored, and, if not, for what office will these personnel work; and
-3(r) whether the system will monitor every postal facility.
These questions generally concern the processes by which the Postal Service may
be using one management
system to monitor how well post offices meet their cut off
times for delivering mail to post oftice boxes. Even if Mr. Carlson can establish that the
Postal Service does not monitor to his satisfaction how well post offices meet stated cut
off times, that would not contribute significantly to the determination
for post otTice box service, or any other classification,
of appropriate
fees
rate, or fee at issue in this
proceeding.
While the exact time of delivery to post oftice boxes may be a matter of concern to
Mr. Carlson, as well as other post office box customers, the process by which such
delivery times are managed and monitored is beyond the scope of an omnibus rate
proceeding,
much as would be an examination of individual delivery routes or
schedules, or the overall management
of carrier delivery operations.’
Mr. Carlson’s
questions, moreover, are only tangentially related to when box mail is delivered.
Instead, they concern monitoring whether the delivery time for First-Class box mail
matches customer expectations
established by the posted cut off time. These
monitoring issues and procedures for managing postal operations are not, in
’ The time that post office box mail is delivered has some relationship to the value ot post office box
service. However, the Postal Service is proposing fees for post office box service that would produce a
cost coverage for post office box and caller service of only 114.7 percent, slightly below the 115.4 percent
cost coverage recommended in Docket No. R94-1. Thus, the fees proposed by the Postal Service for
post office box and caller service reflect a low cost coverage. Given the low existing and proposed cost
coverage for post office box and caller service, any showing by Mr. Carlson that the value of service for
post office box service is low should have no material impact on the fees recommended by the
Commission.
- A-
themselves,
proper matters for consideration
during rate proceedings,
level of detail indicated by Mr. Carlson’s questions.
especially at the
See, e.g., part (I). Detailed
inquiries into customer service are not proper issues during rate proceedings,
beyond the scope of what is considered in determining,
rates, fees, and classifications
and are
within a limited time period,
for postal services.
The Postal Service maintains its belief, shared by the Presiding Officer, that
discovery, rather than direct contact with Postal Service officials other ithan rate case
counsel, is the proper means for intervenors to obtain information about general mail
delivery procedures, when such procedures are implicated by a rate proceeding.
Presiding Officer’s Ruling No. R97-l/70,
questions concerning
at 4. However, discovery is limited to
relevant, materiatinformation,
as well as to certalin time periods.*
With respect to timeliness, this interrogatory was not mailed by Mr. Carlson until 18
days after the response to interrogatory
DFCIUSPS-9
was filed. Even assuming a
week before that response was received by Mr. Carlson, interrogatory
DFCIUSPS-19
would be beyond the seven-day deadline in Special Rule 2D for filing follow-up
interrogatories.
Moreover, answering the interrogatory
burdensome.
and its eighteen parts would be
The system with which the interrogatory
is concerned
is already used in
* See footnote 3 of Response of United States Postal Service to Douglas F. Carlson Comments on
Opposition of United States Postal Service to Douglas F. Carlson Motion to Admit DFCIUSPS-T40-XE-I-9
and LR-DFC-1 into Evidence, This footnote recognized that discovery concerning specific situations
“might be more fruitful, assuming such situations are relevant and material to issues in the proceeding.”
(emphasis added). Any recommendations concerning how Mr. Carlson might make his discovery more
effective in the future were not intended to waive objections to untimely discovery requests, given that the
period for discovery on the Postal Service’s direct case has already ended in Docket No. R97-1.
-5more than 8,000 facilities, so responding to part (d) alone would take hundreds of
hours. Moreover, the interrogatory,
in part (d), requests extensive infa’rmation about
and new analyses regarding specific facilities when much of it is commercially
and expressly commended
to the sole discretion of the Postal Service.
sensitive
See 39 U.S.C.
5 404(a).
Interrogatory
DFCIUSPS-20
requests “all documents,
directives, and guidelines
that Area offices have issued since the inception of EXFC that dictate, govern, or
otherwise influence the determination
of collection times that are posted on collection
boxes.”
seeks “all documents,
Interrogatory
DFCIUSPS-21
directives, and guidelines
that Area offices have issued since the inception of EXFC that dictate, govern, or
otherwise influence the response of a post office when a monitoring system reveals, on
a given day, that the final collection of a collection box has not been made by the end of
the responsible carrier or collector’s route,” and asks that the Postal Service indicate
“whether the post office’s response to the knowledge that a box was not collected will
depend on whether the box is located in a city that is monitored by EXFC.” A major
basis for the Postal Service’s objection to each of these interrogatories
burden involved in responding to them far exceeds the likely contribution
is that the
that any
response would make to the record of this proceeding.
The Postal Service’s External First Class (EXFC) System predates the field
organization
that includes the Area oftices. Thus, the Postal Service interprets Mr.
Carlson’s interrogatories
DFCIUSPS-20-21
to be directed towards relevant documents
that may have been issued by these Area offices since their inception, i.e., since 1992.
-6Each of these broad requests could yield dozens of documents from each Area office,
and would require that a painstaking search through five years’ worth of files to ensure
that a complete search would be made. This burden is multiplied tenfold, as Mr.
Cadson’s requests would necessitate such a search at each of the Po:stal Service’s ten
Area ofices.
The Postal Service estimates that providing a response to these ilnterrogatories
would require a minimum of three hours of search time per Area office files, plus time to
review the documents
in order to ascertain they do not contain commercially
sensitive
or other objectionable
material, and to determine whether they are actually responsive
to Mr. Carlson’s discovery request.3 At the very least, the Postal Service estimates that
the search process involved in complying with these two discovery requests would be
likely to consume between four and five hours per Area office, for a total of forty to fifty
hours of search and review time and effort?
This burden must be weighed against the relevance of the requested material to
the current proceeding.
While the presence or absence of EXFC in a geographic area
influences collections and collection times may weigh to some extent on the value of
service of First Class Mail, it is the position of the Postal Service that 1:his attenuated
link
3 For example, DFCIUSPS-20 “seeks only information that relates to steps that Area offices have taken
partially or entirely for the purpose of reducing the likelihood that a collection box will be collected prior to
the posted collection time.” Responding to this request would require a substantive review of each
document located, to determine whether it fits within this definition.
4 Some preliminary investigation of this question has indicated that the determination of the posting of
collection times is a decision made at the District level, not the Area level. At this point, it is not known
whether and to what extent this is indeed the case. If it is the case, the burden desc:ribed in this objection
would increase substantially.
-7-
does not justify the substantial effort that would be required to provide the information
that Mr. Carlson seeks
The Postal Service also believes that these interrogatories,
22, are not appropriate
along with DFCIUSPS-
under Special Rule 2E, because it appears that the responses
could not be used to develop evidentiary testimony in this proceeding ,that rebuts the
testimony of participants other than the Postal Service.’
not request “data” or “operating procedures”.
DFCIUSPS-19
Moreover, the questions do
Instead, the questions posed in
ask for how the Postal Service monitors its operations, and, in certain
cases, ask for whether certain actions would be “reasonable”
(parts k-l). DFWJSPS-
20-22 ask for the impact of EXFC on collection times, and how the Postal Service
responds to information
regarding the non-collection
of particular mail,. It is difficult to
conceive how Mr. Carlson intends to use this information to rebut the testimony of
intervenors yet to be filed, or how he proposes to utilize the results of the burdensome
surveys that he would have the Postal Service conduct on his behalf in his own direct
evidentiary presentation.
Requiring the Postal Service to perform these surveys and
produce the information
requested would contribute little to the record that would have
any bearing on the issues properly before the Commission,
particularly at this stage of
the proceedings.
5 See Presiding Officer’s Ruling No. MC96-3/36 at 2 (Special
needs data available only from the Postal Service in order to
than the Postal Service.“). The Postal Service therefore also
because it is not permitted under Special Rule 2E. in addition
interrogatory DFCIUSPS-23 filed separately today.
Rule 2E “is limited to when a participant
prepare testimony to rebut participants other
objects to interrogatory DFC/USPS-23
to the grounds stated in the objection to
-8WHEREFORE,
the United States Postal Service objects to interrogatories
DFMJSPS-19-22.
Respectfully submitted,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
By its attorneys:
Daniel J. Foucheaux, Jr.
Chief Counsel, Ratemaking
/c,,&li
1u:,
Kenneth N. Hollies
CERTIFICATE
OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon all
participants of record in this proceeding in accordance with section 12 of the Rules of
Practice.
Kenneth N. Hollies
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20260-I 137
(202) 268-3083; Fax -5402
December 8.1997